The plaintiffs claimed it would have a negative effect to local ecosystems to construct a border wall between the United States and Mexico.

“It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court won’t consider this important constitutional issue,” Brian Segee, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), told The Daily Caller.

“Trump has abused his power to wreak havoc along the border to score political points. He’s illegally sweeping aside bedrock environmental and public health laws. We’ll continue to fight Trump’s dangerous wall in the courts and in Congress,” he continued.

A 1996 federal law allows the attorney general, and Department of Homeland Security after it was created in 2002, to construct barriers along the border to combat illegal aliens and immigration.

The law also gives the DHS secretary the legal authority to bypass environmental laws with regards to border projects.

The group appealed the case to the Supreme Court after U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel sided with the federal government and ruled that the Trump administration could legally use the 1996 law with regards to border barriers.

Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke — who lost his Senate race earlier this month to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, and is likely eyeing a 2020 run — is one of the signatories to an amicus brief that urged the High Court to take on the case.

Last week, Trump said funding for the border wall is a top priority during the lame duck Congress and that he would support shutting down the government if the funds are not appropriated.

“We need border security in this country, and if that means a shutdown I would totally be willing to shut it down,” Trump said. “And I think it’s a really bad issue for the Democrats.”